Rodriguez v.

GMA show that she should have known about the violation of his right to life, liberty or security, or that she had failed to investigate, punish or prevent it.Facts: Rodriguez claims that the military tagged the Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas as an Important Bits:enemy of the State under the Oplan Bantay Laya, making its members targets of extrajudicial Writs of amparo and habeas data were promulgated to ensure the protection of thekillings and enforced disappearances. He further claims that the soldiers of the 17th Infantry peoples rights to life, liberty, and security. The rules on these writs were issued inBattalion, 5th Infantry Division of the military abducted him on September 6, 2009 and detained light of the alarming prevalence of extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances.and tortured him until September 17, 2009 and forced him to confess to being a member of Writ of amparo an extraordinary remedy that provides rapid judicial relief, as itthe NPA. partakes of a summary proceeding that requires only substantial evidence to make Rodriguez filed before the SC a Petition for the Writ of Amparo and Petition for the the appropriate interim and permanent reliefs available to the petitioner. It servesWrit of Habeas Data with Prayers for Protection Orders, Inspection of Place, and Production of both preventive and curative roles in addressing the problem of extrajudicial killingsDocuments and Personal Properties. The SC granted the respective writs after finding that the and enforced disappearances. It is preventive in that it breaks the expectation ofpetition sufficiently alleged that Rodriguez was abducted, tortured, and later released by impunity in the commission of these offenses, and it is curative in that it facilitatesmembers of the 17th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army and directed the CA to hear the the subsequent punishment of perpetrators by inevitably leading to subsequentpetition and decide on the case. investigation and action. Respondents, on the other hand, allege that Rodriguez had surrendered to the Writ of habeas data provides a judicial remedy to protect a persons right to controlmilitary because he wanted to get out of the NPA and offered to help the military in exchange information regarding oneself, particularly in instances where such information isfor protection. They allege that Rodriguez then voluntarily returned to the NPA as a double- being collected through unlawful means in order to achieve unlawful ends. As anagent and has become a military asset. independent and summary remedy to protect the right to privacy, especially the The CA rendered its decision partially in favor of Rodriguez. It granted the prayers of right to informational privacy, the proceedings for the issuance of the writ of habeasRodriguez save for the command responsibility of GMA on account of her presidential data does not entail any finding of criminal, civil or administrative culpability. If theimmunity from suit. allegations in the petition are proven through substantial evidence, then the Court may (a) grant access to the database or information; (b) enjoin the act complainedIssue: of; or (c) in case the database or information contains erroneous data or information, W/N the doctrine of command responsibility can be used in amparo and habeas data order its deletion, destruction or rectification.cases. To hold someone liable under the doctrine of command responsibility, the following elements must obtain:Held: a) the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship between the accused Yes. Command responsibility pertains to the responsibility of commanders for crimes as superior and the perpetrator of the crime as his subordinate;committed by subordinate members of the armed forces or other persons subject to their b) the superior knew or had reason to know that the crime was about to becontrol in international wars or domestic conflict. Although originally used for ascertaining or had been committed; andcriminal complicity, the command responsibility doctrine has also found application in civil c) the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures tocases for human rights abuses. Precisely in the case at bar, the doctrine of command prevent the criminal acts or punish the perpetrators thereof.responsibility may be used to determine whether respondents are accountable for and havethe duty to address the abduction of Rodriguez in order to enable the courts to devise remedialmeasures to protect his rights. Clearly, nothing precludes this Court from applying the doctrineof command responsibility in amparo proceedings to ascertain responsibility andaccountability in extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances. In her separate opinion in Rubrico, Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales pointed out that,protection includes conducting effective investigations, organization of the governmentapparatus to extend protection to victims of extralegal killings or enforced disappearances, orthreats thereof, and/or their families, and bringing offenders to the bar of justice. But as to the responsibility of GMA, the Court ruled that aside from generalaverments, Rodriguez has not presented any piece of evidence that could establish herresponsibility or accountability for his abduction. Neither was there even a clear attempt to